Re: [RFC] staging: ste_rmi4: merge into the main kernel tree

From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc: Alexandra Chin <alexandra.chin@tw.synaptics.com>,
	Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@euromail.se>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Input <linux-input@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@stericsson.com>,
	Naveen Kumar Gaddipati <naveen.gaddipati@stericsson.com>,
	Mahesh Srinivasan <msrinivasan@synaptics.com>,
	Alex Chang <alex.chang@tw.synaptics.com>,
	Scott Lin <scott.lin@tw.synaptics.com>,
	Christopher Heiny <Cheiny@synaptics.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] staging: ste_rmi4: merge into the main kernel tree
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:55:23 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121115185522.GA4077@core.coreip.homeip.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdZtsTpNiRBzs3rUz48AvoZ4UpcrO-4__xmsb0XezUVFtg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Linus,

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 06:41:26PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Dmitry Torokhov
> <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > In this case you need to enumerate the benefits of this driver over
> > unified driver and show why the unified driver can't be fixed.
> 
> The benefit is that the ugliness in
> drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/board-mop500-u8500uib-rmi4.c
> can be avoided, as today we're unable to pass the compulsory
> platform data in any sane way. I'm being told that this weak symbol
> override actually does not really work... especially if there are more
> than 1 I2C device on the bus :-P

I am confused as to why this would be a benefit of ste_rmi4 over full
RMI4 implementation from Christopher's group?

I think what we really need is to accelerate work on the full driver so
it is in mainline in 3.9ish.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry